Privatize the space program
By Robert Garmong
web posted March 17, 2003
When asked how they would "heal" after the loss of space
shuttle Columbia, NASA's engineers responded as one: NASA
heals by solving yesterday's problems and launching the next
mission. So, indeed, does the American nation. Thus, before the
grief had fully faded into memory, we began asking ourselves
what had gone wrong, and how to solve it.
Many solutions have been proposed, from the incremental (such
as safety upgrades and improved inspections) to the radical
(such as a new breed of space vehicles powered by plasma
engines). But the most radical change, the one that would
improve space exploration most dramatically, has been ignored:
privatizing the space program.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space
exploration, as the grandest of man's technological
advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only
to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and
judgment. Yet by placing the space program under governmental
funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental
whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of
NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked
by shifting, inconsistent and ill-defined goals.
The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing
constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there
was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch
satellites for the Department of Defense and private
contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight,
disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which
could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one
"need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need
for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical
achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-
budget overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and
nothing well.
Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased
out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted,
largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the
overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching
cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--
but not so in a government project, with home-district
congressmen to lobby on their behalf.
Now comes evidence that the political nature of the space
program may have even been directly responsible for the
Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to
stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster
rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11
times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based
foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on
Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone
depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released
by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency
elected to stick with the politically correct foam.
It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent
an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of
science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible
demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this
politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental
control over scientific research and development. If space
development is to be transformed from an expensive national
bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride, to a
practical industry with real and direct benefits, it will only be by
unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds.
Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space.
After government involvement in space exploration is phased
out, the free market will work to produce whatever there is
demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft, both
military and civilian. In addition, Congress should develop a
system of property rights to any stellar body reached and
exploited by an American company. This would provide
economic incentive for the sorts of extremely ambitious projects
NASA would not dare to propose to its Congressional purse-
holders.
Extending man's reach into space is not, as some have claimed,
our "destiny." Standing between us and the stars are enormous
technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more
heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the
continents. But first, we must make a fundamental choice: will
America continue to hold its best engineering minds captive to
politics, or will we set them free?
Robert Garmong is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute
(www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas
Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com